1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) among the judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the main lawsuit extended in the trial of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts 13, 19, 18, 5, 13, 13, 19, 18, 5, of the first instance judgment are as follows:

3) Next, we examine whether there is a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiffs have the right of representation to K. In order to claim the effect of an expression agency beyond the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act, the requirement exists to believe that the agent has the right of representation, if the agent expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intent on behalf of himself/herself or performs any act other than the authority with the intention of representation, and that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the other party has the right of representation. The existence of justifiable reason here should be determined by objectively observing and assessing all the circumstances existing when the act of agent by his/her own name is performed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2475, Jul. 7, 1987; 2012Da2701, Jul. 26, 2012; i.e.,,, I granted the right to receive the lease contract and the right to receive the management fees from July 6, 200 to 18.